Rhipidomys Tschudi 1845

Wilson, Don E. & Reeder, DeeAnn, 2005, Order Rodentia - Family Cricetidae, Mammal Species of the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3 rd Edition), Volume 2, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 955-1189 : 1167

Rhipidomys Tschudi 1845

Rhipidomys Tschudi 1845 , Untersuchungen uber die Fauna peruana (Therologie): 183.

Type Species: Hesperomys leucodactylus Tschudi 1845

Species and subspecies: 17 species:

Species Rhipidomys austrinus Thomas 1921

Species Rhipidomys caucensis J. A. Allen 1913

Species Rhipidomys couesi J. A. Allen and Chapman 1893

Species Rhipidomys emiliae J. A. Allen 1916

Species Rhipidomys fulviventer Thomas 1896

Species Rhipidomys gardneri Patton, da Silva, and Malcolm 2000

Species Rhipidomys latimanus Tomes 1860

Species Rhipidomys leucodactylus Tschudi 1845

Species Rhipidomys macconnelli De Winton 1900

Species Rhipidomys macrurus Gervais 1855

Species Rhipidomys mastacalis (Lund 1840)

Species Rhipidomys modicus Thomas 1926

Species Rhipidomys nitela Thomas 1901

Species Rhipidomys ochrogaster J. A. Allen 1901

Species Rhipidomys venezuelae Thomas 1896

Species Rhipidomys venustus Thomas 1900

Species Rhipidomys wetzeli Gardner 1989

Discussion: Thomasomyini. Tribe (1996) explained why the genus-group name Rhipidomys is available from Tschudi (1845), not 1844 as conventionally cited (e.g., Cabrera, 1961; Ellerman, 1941). External and cranial morphology characterized and contrasted with superficially similar species of Oecomys by Tribe (1996), Patton et al. (2000), and Voss et al. (2001). Sister genus to the Chilomys Thomasomys clade based on phylogenetic evaluations of mitochondrial DNA sequences from 2-6 species surveyed (D’Elía et al., 2003; Smith and Patton, 1999). As noted by Tribe (1996), monophyly of the associated species within a single genus has yet to be convincingly demonstrated; relationships among the distinctive morphologies identifiable within the taxon may involve other thomasomyines and eventual rearrangement of generic boundaries. Tribe designated those morphologies as three formal "sections": Fulviventer ( R. caucensis , R. fulviventer , R. venustus , R. wetzeli ); Leucodactylus ( R. austrinus , R. couesi , R. emiliae , R. gardneri , R. latimanus , R. leucodactylus ; R. macrurus , R. mastacalis , R. modicus , R. nitela , R. ochrogaster , R. venezuelae ); and Macconnelli ( R. macconnelli ).

No published revisionary standard is available. Species and synonyms acknowledged herein in general observe our earlier listing (1993), as based on examination of holotypes and series in AMNH, BMNH, and USNM, and the unpublished thesis of Tribe (1996), which is the best synthesis of valid species and their distributional limits based on exhaustive examination of museum specimens. Nonetheless, the distributions of many species remain inadequately documented, and the continued listing of Rhipidomys as species indeterminate or undescribed species (e.g., Anderson, 1997; Costa, 2003; Pereira et al., 2001; Tribe, 1996) concedes our incomplete knowledge of their alpha-level systematics. Volobouev and Catzeflis (2000) summarized karyotypic data for the genus and discussed mechanisms of cytogenetic change; Andrades-Miranda (2002) provided additional karyotypic records and also summarized reports for the genus; Costa (2003) analyzed phylogeographic patterns among select species distributed in the Amazon Basin and Atlantic Forest .